Do you agree that the same thing goes for a photocomic? Beautiful photography is nice and all, but really the only thing that matters to me personally is whether the artistic effect serves the point I am trying to make. If I were to set out to prove something about my photographic skills, I would be the poorer artist for it, considering the kinds of things I write. Of course, it’s hard to put that across to someone who hasn’t actually read it, yet; I feel there is a tendency when people look at a photocomic to make more superficial judgements, as if different rules apply.

The point I was trying to make is that it operates equally for both; there actually isn’t any difference, and the important thing is usually the content and the narrative relationship between the way the various panels ‘feel’ rather than how good they look aesthetically. But I think you know that and you were making a rhetorical point, which is well taken.

As some one who is still learning how to draw, I realize this so much! The most important thing is that people know WHAT you’re trying to depict but even if you think you can’t draw the situation you’re trying to depict, just go for it. It’ll be worth it.

I think it is a bit of both. Even the simplest of drawings takes a lot of skill. It is very challenging to approach drawing with “less is more” approach. I think a well drawn idea is much more powerful than a crappy drawn idea.

It drives me crazy that this is true- it really, really does. It’s the post-art school perfectionist mindset and I hate it. If I spend too long on art I leave out key parts of the story if I try too hard to make the storytelling perfect I tend to exhaust myself and have below-par artwork that just looks…mundane. It’s really like an endless cycle of craziness.

This is true to a point. I often find if the art work is really poorly executed then I can’t read the story no matter how good it might be simply because the visuals hurt my eyes. That said, the opposite also remains true, beautiful art does not a good story make.

I think that the “interesting” part from this phrase (with which I basically agree) derives solely from whether someone has something solid to share through his comic or not. If that’s the deal, I personally couldn’t care less if it’s done with stick figures, masterful drawings or any other way for that matter.

You might be doing yourself a disservice by using Charles Burns as an example here – someone who is unable to manage the foreshortening, clean compositions and whatnot here (like probably me) would end up with something entirely different.
But I guess that’s maybe that’s more about style or the how-it-is-drawnness than the how-well-it’s-drawnness?

Not coincidentally, I had this lesson most clearly imprinted on me when I did my first 24-hour comic, when the storytelling had to be instinctive and clear, and there was no possible way to pretty it up with nice rendering.

Perhaps one of the most comprehensive and important lessons I’ve ever had.

That is basically the moving force behind the greatest cartoonists, what inspires us and gives us the courage to actually try and put a pen on a paper, regardless of material or skill. But it is also why cartoonists have been prejudiced and have taken a long time to be recognized as true artists.